To:I. E. HERMAN

Written:Written later than July 18, 1914Published:First published in 1935 in the magazineProletarskaya RevolutsiaNo. 5.

      Sent from Poronin to Berlin.

      Printed from the original.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Progress Publishers,[1976],

      Moscow,Volume 35,

      pages150-152.Translated:Andrew RothsteinTranscription\Markup:R. CymbalaPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive.You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work, as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.•README

DearComrade Herman,

Itseems to me that animportantmoment is approaching in the
attitude of the Lettish Social-Democrats to the Russian Social-Democratic
Labour Party (in the person of the Central Committee—to ourpartof the R.S.D.L.P.—if that suits your legitimists, who want to
“consider” the liquidators a little).

Hereclarity and honesty are necessary.

In1911–14 the Letts (their C.C.) were liquidators.

Atthe Congress of 1914[2]they became opponents of liquidationism,
butneutralas between the O.C. and the C.C.

Now,after Brussels, after the resolution in No. 32 ofTrudovaya
Pravda,[3]the Letts want to enter our Party and conclude an
agreement with the C.C.

Isthis a good thing?

Itis good, if what is being done is clearly understood and there is an
honest attitude towards it.

Itis bad, if it is being done without clear understanding, without
firm resolution and reckoning with the consequences.

Thosewho want legitimacy in the sense of restoring the
Stockholm-London (1906–07) R.S.D.L.P., had better not join our Party:
there will be no result except squabbles, disappointments, offence taken
and mutual hindrance. That was “a federation of the worst type” (as was
stated in the resolution of the January 1912 Conference of the
R.S.D.L.P.).[4]It wasrottenness. Away with that rottenness!

Ifit is a question of defending the relics of federalism (for example,
the Stockholm agreement anddelegationfrom the Lettish C.C. to the Russian C.C.[5]), then it’s a waste of
time! In my belief we shall not accept it. It is play-acting, diplomacyà laTyszka (which is now being imitated by the scoundrels
in the Polish opposition, who went over at Brussels to the liquidators),
not team work. Are we agreed inprinciple? Yes or no? If the
answer is yes, then we must march togetheragainst(1) liquidationism,
(2) “nationalism” (=(a) “cultural-national autonomy” and (b) the
separatism of the Bund),
(3) against federalism. We have clearly, openly, before all the workers of
Russia, unfurled these bannerssince January 1912. That is not a
short time. You could and should have realised what was involved.

Solet’s come to an agreement—if we are to agree—clearly and
honestly. To play at hide-and-seek, in my opinion, is out of place and
unworthy. We are waging aserious war: against us are all the
bourgeois intellectuals, the liquidators, the nationalists and the
separatists of the Bund, the federalists overt and covert. Either we
conclude an agreementagainstall these enemies, orit would
be better put off.

Itis better to confine ourselves to engagement than to tie ourselves
up with marriage, if there is no complete certainty that the union will
endure!!

Allthis is my personal opinion.

ButI should very much like to come to an understanding with you and to
reach clarity. If we came to an agreement on fundamentals at Brussels, we
can and must ask ourselveswithout diplomacywhether we can agree
on a stable treaty.

Iamveryworried that part of the Letts are

forcultural-national autonomy, or wavering,

forBundist federalism, or wavering,hesitatingto
attack the nationalism and separatism of the Bund,hesitatingto support our demand that the liquidationist paper
of a group of disorganisers in Petersburg[6]should be closed, etc.Isit a great part? in general and among members of the Central
Committee? among the workers and among the intellectuals?Isit influential?Afterall, it, iswewho are waging the battle against the
liquidators in Petersburg and throughout Russia. What
is to he done if yoncannot conscientiouslyhelp us tight
the liquidators and the Bundists?? To conclude alastingagreement in that case would he dishonest, and simply
unrealistic!Andnow, in addition, there is this disgusting manoeuvre
of the Polish oppositionin favourof the liquidators (votingforthe Brussels
resolution),[7]fornationalism (recognition
of cultural-national autonomy as “an arguable proposition”),forfederalism (the demand for theold, Tyszka, agreement
of 1906 with the
P.S.D.[1]).Clarity,clarity before everything else! Anyone who has
not realised the state and the circumstances of the war of
proletarian democracy against bourgeois democracy (= the
liquidators and the nationalists)had better wait.Iwould like to know your opinion!Yours,LeninIshould he very glad to hear the opinion of “Paragraph”
on these questions. Show him this letter!(Pleasegive the “14 points” of our
C.C.[8]to Rude for
a day to read through.)Notes[1]PolishSocial-Democracy.—Ed.[2]Referenceis to the Fourth Congress of the Social-Democrats of the
Lettish Region, which was held from January 26 to February 8 (N.S.), 1914
in Brussels.[3]TrudovayaPravdaNo. 32, July 4, 1914, published a resolution
“On the Current Situation and Unity” over the signature of the “Leading
Institution of the Social-Democrats of the Lettish Region” (C.C. of the
S.D.L.P.). Stressing the “need for unity of forces and activity of the
working class”, the resolution stipulated the following as the basis of
unity: (1) “uncurtailed demands”; (2) recognition of the underground; (3)
unity from below; (4) “recognition of the democratic majority and not the
federation”; (5) struggle “against the liquidators both on the right and
on the left”.[4]Theresolution was on “The Absence of Delegates from the Non-Russian
National Centres at the General Party Conference” passed by the Sixth
(Prague) All-Russia Conference of the R.S.D.L.P.[5]Referenceis to the “Draft Terms of the Amalgamation of the Lettish
Social-Democratic Labour Party with the R.S.D.L.P.”, passed at the Fourth
(Unity) Congress of the R.S.D.L.P., April-May 1906, in Stockholm.[6]Thepaper was the Menshevik liquidators’Nasha Rabochaya
Gazeta, which came out in St. Petersburg from May to July 1914.[7]ThePolish opposition, which at the earlier sessions of the Brussels
Conference had been unanimous with the Bolsheviks and the Lettish
Social-Democrats, voted at the last session in favour of the resolution of
the International Socialist Bureau drawn up by Kautsky.[8]Referenceis to the conditions of “unity” proposed by the Bolsheviks
at the Brussels “Unity” Conference (see present edition, Vol. 20,
pp. 515–27).

hesitatingto support our demand that the liquidationist paper
of a group of disorganisers in Petersburg[6]should be closed, etc.

Isit a great part? in general and among members of the Central
Committee? among the workers and among the intellectuals?

Isit influential?

Afterall, it, iswewho are waging the battle against the
liquidators in Petersburg and throughout Russia. What
is to he done if yoncannot conscientiouslyhelp us tight
the liquidators and the Bundists?? To conclude alastingagreement in that case would he dishonest, and simply
unrealistic!

Andnow, in addition, there is this disgusting manoeuvre
of the Polish oppositionin favourof the liquidators (votingforthe Brussels
resolution),[7]fornationalism (recognition
of cultural-national autonomy as “an arguable proposition”),forfederalism (the demand for theold, Tyszka, agreement
of 1906 with the
P.S.D.[1]).

Clarity,clarity before everything else! Anyone who has
not realised the state and the circumstances of the war of
proletarian democracy against bourgeois democracy (= the
liquidators and the nationalists)had better wait.

Iwould like to know your opinion!

Yours,Lenin

Ishould he very glad to hear the opinion of “Paragraph”
on these questions. Show him this letter!

(Pleasegive the “14 points” of our
C.C.[8]to Rude for
a day to read through.)

[1]PolishSocial-Democracy.—Ed.

[2]Referenceis to the Fourth Congress of the Social-Democrats of the
Lettish Region, which was held from January 26 to February 8 (N.S.), 1914
in Brussels.

[3]TrudovayaPravdaNo. 32, July 4, 1914, published a resolution
“On the Current Situation and Unity” over the signature of the “Leading
Institution of the Social-Democrats of the Lettish Region” (C.C. of the
S.D.L.P.). Stressing the “need for unity of forces and activity of the
working class”, the resolution stipulated the following as the basis of
unity: (1) “uncurtailed demands”; (2) recognition of the underground; (3)
unity from below; (4) “recognition of the democratic majority and not the
federation”; (5) struggle “against the liquidators both on the right and
on the left”.

[4]Theresolution was on “The Absence of Delegates from the Non-Russian
National Centres at the General Party Conference” passed by the Sixth
(Prague) All-Russia Conference of the R.S.D.L.P.

[5]Referenceis to the “Draft Terms of the Amalgamation of the Lettish
Social-Democratic Labour Party with the R.S.D.L.P.”, passed at the Fourth
(Unity) Congress of the R.S.D.L.P., April-May 1906, in Stockholm.

[6]Thepaper was the Menshevik liquidators’Nasha Rabochaya
Gazeta, which came out in St. Petersburg from May to July 1914.

[7]ThePolish opposition, which at the earlier sessions of the Brussels
Conference had been unanimous with the Bolsheviks and the Lettish
Social-Democrats, voted at the last session in favour of the resolution of
the International Socialist Bureau drawn up by Kautsky.

[8]Referenceis to the conditions of “unity” proposed by the Bolsheviks
at the Brussels “Unity” Conference (see present edition, Vol. 20,
pp. 515–27).